Revenge of Threads that Make Us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:37 pm

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:56 am

Shrink Item is awesome for NPC villains: permanently turn enemies into stone, shrink them, then decorate your shelf and/or play chess/Warhammer with them.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:39 am

Psychic Robot wrote:WotC's cock chokes another fantard.

Why Board Game Fans are Smarter then RPG Fans
...
But one thing they don't do is attempt to dictate how a company should develop and support its games.

Wrong.

-Username17

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:54 am

board game fans don't' try to influence the companies? Why the hell not? it's what they are there for.

I mean it can be bad but input from the consumer is necessary to provide a good product. ~_~

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:14 am

Passion
It's like logic, only louder. And far, far less accurate.

SunTzuWarmaster · Post by **SunTzuWarmaster** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:25 pm

Hahaha, the "Monks are not proficient with their hands because their hands are simple weapons and they don't get simple weapon proficiency" is a humorous oversight on the part of WoTC. 181 posts later is still a discussion of "well, cows are not proficient with hooves because of the racial hi dice...".

That was a good thread of *facepalm*'ing.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:56 am

You know, it really saddens me to see people arguing over that so much.

"RAW, monks aren't proficient with their unarmed strikes because WotC are incompetent cockstains. RAI, monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes. Let's agree to make it a universal houserule that monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes."

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 2:28 am

More from GitP:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95315

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:03 am

Psychic Robot wrote:You know, it really saddens me to see people arguing over that so much.

"RAW, monks aren't proficient with their unarmed strikes because WotC are incompetent cockstains. RAI, monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes. Let's agree to make it a universal houserule that monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes."

Oberoni! Oberoni!

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:07 am

But he didn't say the original rule was fine because you can fix it.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:14 pm

In fact, he called the author of the rule an incompetent cockstain.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:36 am

Try this.

I joined the LoZ d20 boards, and then posted a few random ideas it had inspired--I admit most of them were crap; I also tested the waters with a 'Fencer' that had a few Races ofWar-level abilities thrown into its progression.

All of a sudden, the admin (someone called Da'Vane) starts pointedly not naming names when she said she suspected 'certain people' of having 'ulterior motives'.

And then this thread gets started gets put up by the admin. Of course, I know exactly who they're talking about and try to clarify my intentions, but somehow fault keeps getting put on me--and others--for making stuff without 'understanding the reasoning behind the system'.

http://z12.invisionfree.com/Zelda_RPG/i ... topic=3133

Oh, and she even ignores comments and defends that variable squares system, which is, to use a term, 'bloody hindering stupid'. It's more work to use than a simple single-sized squares system? Why, that's only a problem because gamers are becoming more lazy! It allows Huge-sized creatures to continually hit-and-run smaller creatures? That's not a flaw, that doesn't have to come into every game. Grapple revision? It was made by Frank Trollman, so I don't like it.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:38 am

Not the whole thread, but this is good:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php? ... tcount=258

Aelryinth wrote: You really aren't expecting logic from Tsunic and his newest account, or his puppet master Archr, are you? Archr is using intimidation and egging on others who flame, his standard tactics while remaining 'loftily above it all', and Tsunic is posting pics and shouting childish names with his newest account.

ZZZZZ. Nothing to see here. Just move along.

I'm sure they'll blame it all on me now that I've posted once. Hah!

===Aelryinth

I'm a puppet master...[/u]

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:22 am

Note: this is not a solicitation for anyone to argue on my behalf. I'm only asking input:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1106123

Did I accidentally say something offensive? OneWingedAngel seems to have taken offense to something I said, and I honestly don't know why.

It's entirely possible that's the case, I don't always represent my ideas well in words. And my brief chats with him previously has shown that he is worse than most at understanding my thought pattern (not an attack, when I'm in IM's my speaking gets more relaxed and sometimes I don't make sense.)

I mean, if someone can politely explain where I fucked up, that'd be pretty cool, we have people who are good at rhetoric here.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:38 am

I think you both just particularly want to find a reason to fight each other - his first response was somewhat tl;dr and a little insulting in a "Never take Count's advice" sort of way, but you overreacted a little bit to it, and then he snapped back and basically, if it was a debate in person, by this stage I'd expect someone to have hit someone with a chair.

But mostly it seems you both have a history, so he'll take the time to make a minor insult, and both of you are looking for a reason to argue and fight. It'd be so much better if it *was* in person, because I'd like to see someone go through a table.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 am

No, you didn't say anything remotely offensive. I'd assume that both OneWinged4ngel and his ego are on the rag.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:52 am

Koumei wrote:I think you both just particularly want to find a reason to fight each other - his first response was somewhat tl;dr and a little insulting in a "Never take Count's advice" sort of way, but you overreacted a little bit to it, and then he snapped back and basically, if it was a debate in person, by this stage I'd expect someone to have hit someone with a chair.

But mostly it seems you both have a history, so he'll take the time to make a minor insult, and both of you are looking for a reason to argue and fight. It'd be so much better if it *was* in person, because I'd like to see someone go through a table.

See, that's the thing. As far as I know, we don't have a history. We've chatted once or twice online, and the conversations were cordial. The only thing I can think of is he asked me to help with a project of his, I informed him that in actuality, I am not great at game design but I could bullshit. However, I told him I had a lot on my plate now, and couldn't guarantee anything. Which was accurate, I haven't had time to look at his website. Which is my fault, I admit.

I just don't know what he's thinking.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:57 am

As I posted in that thread, you guys appear to have a history and I don't care about it. But since you asked politely...

OneWinged4ngel wrote:I've never felt the need to resort ... the craptastic DM deus ex machina you suggest. Sounds like just more padding on your long record of bad advice. (...)I surely hope those things aren't too extreme for you to cope with.

I have to agree with 1W4 that "rocks fall, everybody dies" is a crappy way to handle a game. Aside from that, there was an unprovoked jab in there, and some unnecessary snottiness.

I don't see anything offenisive in your posts (some things I disagree with, but nothing rude). BTW, my "table it" comment was intended to get 4ngel to shut up and encourage you to not rise to his bait...one malcontent is bad enough; two folks with a history arguing will derail a thread like *that*. I was trying to sound neutral, so as not to appear to be taking sides.

Edit: Simul; charged to make sense in view of Count's post.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:19 am

Fail thread is made of fail, also, the woman with the hardon for tentacle monsters is ..... >_< omg, it's so dumb.

First, there is no single 'squares mechanic'. Instead, there is the interplay of several discrete mechanics, each of which may still be fine tuned as needed. To diregard all of them as flawed is like throwing away your personal computer because your mouse no longer works properly.

The analogy that she us looking for is:

Throwing out your mouse because it's making your computer not function propery.

Right now a system like that is ridiculous.

Really, you're better off using a "smaller" grid system (1/4" squares) than to have a "variable" system.

There's already enough calculating of movement as it is in this type of game.

I should know, I've run at least three years worth of weekly sessions running up to 6 hours each where we only used maps and minis to determine combat positioning.

While one or two sessions might have had 1 or 2 players, the bulk of them had usually 6-8 players and up to 11 or 12 PC-controlled characters; with up to double that many monsters.

A "variable squares" system would make my games impossible. Meaning that it will probably cause headaches for other people as well.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:42 am

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:
Koumei wrote:I think you both just particularly want to find a reason to fight each other - his first response was somewhat tl;dr and a little insulting in a "Never take Count's advice" sort of way, but you overreacted a little bit to it, and then he snapped back and basically, if it was a debate in person, by this stage I'd expect someone to have hit someone with a chair.

But mostly it seems you both have a history, so he'll take the time to make a minor insult, and both of you are looking for a reason to argue and fight. It'd be so much better if it *was* in person, because I'd like to see someone go through a table.
See, that's the thing. As far as I know, we don't have a history. We've chatted once or twice online, and the conversations were cordial. The only thing I can think of is he asked me to help with a project of his, I informed him that in actuality, I am not great at game design but I could bullshit. However, I told him I had a lot on my plate now, and couldn't guarantee anything. Which was accurate, I haven't had time to look at his website. Which is my fault, I admit.

I just don't know what he's thinking.

He's still working on that? I could have sworn the majority of the good designers and writers walked out when I did.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:14 am

Grapple revision? It was made by Frank Trollman, so I don't like it.

If it makes you feel any better, I roll my eyes when I hear that something was written by Da'Vane before I've read it. The man went on a multi-page rant about how people who attempted to represent a character concept in-game based on the mechanics generated by a collection of classes and abilities were doing it wrong compared to people who were doing it right by selecting the class name / descriptions which sounded like they would best fit their character concept.

I haven't heard anything from him in a long while, but I have no reason to believe that he doesn't still suck. I'm not at all surprised that he still holds a grudge against me.

Edit:

Da Vane wrote:Once again this all boils down to your point of view, Frank.

By playing the numbers game, you aren't thinking outside the box, so obviously Monks seem underpowered, and therefore have no place in your party of muntjkined characters.

However, you compare the Monk unarmoured and disarmed to the Fighter fully armed and armoured. Try the comparison with the Fighter unarmoured and disarmed, and see the difference.

Monks are adaptable, and can never be disarmed or 'unarmoured', their wisdom bonus to AC is like permanently wearing Mage Armour. This bonus isn't lost, even if they are caught flat-footed.

Also, the efficiency of Monks depends upon your campaign. Monks are highly effective against Humanoid Opponents, and can often catch them off-guard. However, agaianst the more eclectic range of monsters, the Monk doesn't fare quite so well.

I'm not just talking out of my ass or spite here - Da Vane was seriously shit at game evaluation and design, and almost invariably argued from emotion last I bothered talking to him.

-Username17

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:19 am

What was OneWinged4ngel's project, a 3.5 revision?

koz · Post by **koz** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:36 am

Psychic Robot wrote:What was OneWinged4ngel's project, a 3.5 revision?

Correct.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:45 am

Aren't there like 5,000 going on at any given time or something?

Anyway, I've found that it's far more productive to say "fuck it" to a cooperative effort. Too much deliberation and arguing, too many ideas on how D&D should be. Far better to revise it oneself and submit it to others for revision.

Of course, this has the potential for epic fail (fucking Pathfinder), but that's only when the developers ignore key aspects of the revision process (i.e., listening to smart people).

Speaking of which, has there been any progress on TNE?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:53 am

Psychic Robot wrote:What was OneWinged4ngel's project, a 3.5 revision?

His is/was an attempt to make a fully formed D&D game that would be an alternate 4th edition that was based more solidly on the concepts of earlier editions. He used a bunch of material from K and myself without attribution, and that's fine because those concepts are open content.

I wish him the best of luck, but I don't think it will ever really take form because his methodology is pretty shot gun.

-Username17